masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Overload
ME3 Player Notes I have an issue with the statement: "Incidentally, this arguably makes the Turian Sentinel (who has both warp and overload) the best class in multiplayer for stripping away defenses and dealing with hardened targets." To me, this seems like an opinion not a fact (since I could argue that Human Engineers, who have Overload for barriers/shields and Incinerate for armor/health are a better class). Shouldn't it be removed? Ataki Uchiha 17:01, April 20, 2012 (UTC) :Player Notes are intended to be players' opinions on a subject. If you want to include mention of the Engineer class as equally viable class to use this power, you're welcome to do so. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:08, April 20, 2012 (UTC) ::That wasn't my point, I just wasn't entirely sure whether an opinionated statement like that should be in the article. Thanks for clearing that up! Ataki Uchiha 17:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC) To the vandal... Overload doing 16% to the third target is simple math. .4 * .4 = .16. Overload's Neural Shock effect is very well documented with extensive test data. And yes, I've played the game and I play multiplayer extensively, using Overload alot. Also, I don't see how any other edit I made is contestable (the neural shock incapacitation being longer than a stun, all the individual attacks stunning weaker enemies regardless of low damage). (Thelee (talk) 04:47, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) Neural Shock information is wrong. Tested it personally. Used Overload with both chain evolutions and Neural Shock. Hit three Assault Troopers with Overload, and all three of them were ragdolled for the same period of time. The information regarding Neural Shock is simply wrong, and more than likely the rest of the 'data' is just as flawed. :1) The notes provided said nothing about Neural Shock incapacitation time. :2) Where was your control for your test? I can't take your word for it if no baseline value is provided. :3) You've undone information wholesale that has nothing to do with your point, some of which is even developer-confirmed. If you want to take it all out, you need to disprove each point, one by one. :4) I'm pretty sure you're the same person who's been using multiple IP addresses to harass people on this site, so you should be banned outright right now for previous violations and multiple IP abuse. Lksdjf (talk) 13:06, May 31, 2013 (UTC) ::Not strictly to feed the troll, but they do raise the issue of incapacitation time (though using that to invalidate even devconfirmed edits is.... specious). Like Lksdjk, I'd like to know more about this test that showed all three assault troopers being "ragdolled" for the same amount of time. Let's say to avoid confusion we avoid the term "ragdoll" (since it has a specific implication for game mechanics) and use "stun" (normal overload effect), "knocked over" (neural shock overload effect), and "disable" (either stun or knocked over). ::# Do you find corroborating evidence elsewhere from other users on this wiki or other community sites that suggests that the widespread perception that neural shock increases total disable time is wrong? If so, can you provide it here? If not, what is the evidence that you propose that contradicts that notion? ::# When you are playing in-game, how are you measuring the total disabling time? Is there a clean youtube video that can be analyzed in absence of a recording of your own play? ::# When you are timing things in-game, are you accounting for the fact that second and third chain targets from Overload are hit at a slight delay from the first? ::# When you say "ragdolled for the same period of time," are you talking about the actual glowing/twitchy effect that accompanies both stunning and knocking over? Are you differentiating between the length of time it takes for an already-standing stunned enemy to resume firing and a knocked over enemy to stand back up and resume firing? ::# Lastly, is it possible you may be reading too much into the word "significantly" in the notes? IE, significantly as per google "in a statistically significant way." The note doesn't suggest that the disable lasts like twice or thrice as long, merely that the knocking over is in fact notably longer than stunning. ::For the record, this is more correctly the way we should be contesting/talking about edits, not hostile reverts without any discussion. (Thelee (talk) 17:03, May 31, 2013 (UTC))